Landscape Gardening Maintenance Marple & Marple Bridge

Author Topic: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion  (Read 31532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2014, 03:49:42 PM »
As far as I am aware Duke, virtually all councils have had to make severe budget cuts, and this will have been done, I am sure, by redundancies. So your assertion that council's are employing more people than ever is probably just that, an assertion.

My point, rather badly made, was that although there have been cuts in local authorities, the funding is still at 2007 levels which was not exactly starving local authorities and they were well into the Labour program of creating jobs to keep the employment figures looking good. A quick glance at Stockport Council job page still has a plethora of jobs for those who perhaps didn't try too hard at school. Personally, I disagree with the idea that the local council should be employer of last resort and spending money just to keep the willing unemployable busy, it simply pushes costs up for other employers.

I am also amazed that somebody would even consider voting for a party that they know just can't win. What really is the point in that. Andrew S's statement that Labour can't win here is far from 'dead in the water, ( I personally wish it was) It is the opposite of being that, it is absolutely true, and that is why the Libdems keep peddling it because they know that it is a fact and it squeezes the labour vote for them. It might not squeeze as many as it used to but they obviously think that the number is still significant. Nobody says LD's, Conservative or UKIP CAN'T WIN because we all know that any of them might do.

I disagree, surely people should vote on the policy they agree with or past performance. I'm not voting for Labour simply because their policies do not add up, all the things they've promised in opposition cannot be paid for by a mansion tax and there seems to be some doubt as to how this mansion tax will work in any case. Those who have a big house but can't afford the mansion tax can defer it until they die!! I also take on board the absolute pig's ear they made of the Economy when the Scottish PM was in charge and I look at the key personnel, IMHO the leader is terrible, the shadow chancellor is a liar, a nasty piece of work and I suspect has a fair chunk of corruption juice on his hands from the days of the bank crisis and LIBOR.

Ironically I think Michael wouldn't be a bad Tory MP and could vote for him with a blue rosette. I'm likely to vote Lib dem as I think some of them have been very good in coalition.

Some people seem to be voting for something that others are saying is being offered but the reality of it is that it isn't - such as a Labour MP for Marple. There is absolutely no such offer, I only wish there were.

You have a point here, From what I know of Michael, he's a one nation Tory / European style Christian democrat so a vote for Labour here is a vote for a one nation Tory but the scary thing is that it could let in a Labour government.

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2014, 12:16:54 PM »
As far as I am aware Duke, virtually all councils have had to make severe budget cuts, and this will have been done, I am sure, by redundancies. So your assertion that council's are employing more people than ever is probably just that, an assertion.

I am continually surprised when in an election taking place in 2015 people refer to Thatcher and Wilson people that have been out office for decades.

I am also amazed that somebody would even consider voting for a party that they know just can't win. What really is the point in that. Andrew S's statement that Labour can't win here is far from 'dead in the water, ( I personally wish it was) It is the opposite of being that, it is absolutely true, and that is why the Libdems keep peddling it because they know that it is a fact and it squeezes the labour vote for them. It might not squeeze as many as it used to but they obviously think that the number is still significant. Nobody says LD's, Conservative or UKIP CAN'T WIN because we all know that any of them might do.

Some people seem to be voting for something that others are saying is being offered but the reality of it is that it isn't - such as a Labour MP for Marple. There is absolutely no such offer, I only wish there were.

I choose to live here n Marple and a political party and a particular MP can have a significant impact on my life. So I need to vote for somebody that might can get in not somebody that absolutely can't. If I was looking for a husband, I wouldn't marry another woman and if was looking for an MP for Marple  I wouldn't vote Labour.

There are only three candidates whom to varying degrees can win the seat.

Perhaps we should look at it from another perspective and ask ourselves who we don't want in and work from there.       

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2014, 11:50:13 AM »
I worked in the Benefit Office during the Thatcher years and saw the Tories destroy Britain north of Watford. A word previously not even in the vocabulary of most Marpudlians destroyed the nation - unemployment. The consequence of the Tories determination to destroy the trade unions irregardless of the cost resulted what was the previously a part-time two morning a week outhouse of a benefit office becoming the busiest building in Marple full of people desperate for work receiving benefits which they had paid for during their many years of work.

What a wonderfully simplistic reveiw of the post-war industrial decline in Britain, it was all Thatcher's fault??? Throw in a nice big chip the shoulder re. the North-South divide.

British industry's problems started far earlier than 1979. Post-war government wanted influence over industry as it provided money to help industry return back to non-military production and as a result industry had to do things that were not really best for industry but best (in the eyes of the government) for the UK as a whole. For this reason we saw the likes of Rootes group building it's new car in Linwood Scotland rather than the midlands where it had a skilled labour force, similar interventions occurred across the industries but other big ones were Triumph being forced to move to Speke. THis all led to industry creating sub-standard products that only had a market because of protectionism and the commonwealth.

Additional workers rights were welcome but weak management and weak government ensured that worker power soon got out of hand & British industry became unproductive as it suffered from crippling industrial action.

Failing businesses were bailed out. Instead of receiving the kick up the backside it needed, when industry failed government bailed it out and nationalised it which was a disaster.

Once we joined the EEC, we could no longer protect our industry and the ineptness of British products and poor workmanship contrasted with products made away from these shores.

The UK government continued to prop up industry and intervene in industry that it really knew nothing about. A huge grant was given to Wallsend ship-builders to build huge super-tankers to compete with the Japanese despite the yard being far more adept at building smaller vessels and Offshore rigs. The big ships were built, they were to expensive and weren't as good as the competition so it wasn't surprising that once the super-tankers rolled into the Tyne, the yards didn't get anymore orders and all it's customers for smaller craft had gone elsewhere too. Add to that, the Labour government gave all it's military orders to Scotland for political reasons - shipbuilding had died long before Thatcher.

By 1975, it was clear the UK economy was in trouble but the likes of Tony Benn pressed on with throwing public money into industry and nationalising where possible. '76 saw the realisation that the money had gone and in came the IMF. The likes of Triumph in Speke were closed (as it happened, it had been closed for more days than open for the previous 3 years due to industrial action) as the govt could no longer prop it up.

In this time, the high earners had fled the UK due to the crippling tax rates so that should be a warning that driving the top 10% away will not help you tax take.

It was already clear that the UK could not carry on pretending to be an industrial power-house. Labour, under Callaghan had some success in stopping the rot by following the IMF conditions for the bail-out. Those conditions were pretty much Thatcher's policy too and in she came.

Her policy was no more bailing out, industry had to survive on it's own, survival of the fittest. Privatise the likes of  Roadline,  Sealink, IMOS, ICL, Rolls Royce, BA etc. Privatisation had already been successful when the Tories were in power under Heath when Thomas Cook, Lunn Poly, Rolls Royce cars and Carlisle's public houses were sold into private enterprise and freed from the shackles of State ownership.

We take it for granted now that industry must compete, so which part of this policy do you disagree with? Perhaps government should own pubs , perhaps we should have a state travel company?

I have no great interest in politics but my only political ambition was that we would never again see a Conservative government. Two days before the last General Election Andrew Stunnell put a letter through my door stating Labour cannot win in Marple - you must vote LibDem to keep out the Tories. I dutifully did so and Andrew Stunnell immediately became a founding father of the ConDem coalition and later received his knighthood in recognition of this act of betrayal. Westminster LibDems sold their souls to the devil to satisfy their lust for power and sacrificed many admirable policies and I vowed that I would never again vote LibDem. Local LibDem councillors who I believe have done a fantastic job over many years were left to do the dirty work of their political masters and the Tory party which used the LibDems to destroy healthcare (try getting a doctor's appointment in Marple in less than a week), public services and public transport (grotty old bangers of trains with seats so close together you cannot fit if you are over 5 foot 10:

Why do you think Lib Dems have betrayed you? If you didn't agree with Lib Dem policy then I'd say it's pretty stupid for voting for them. They are the 3rd party in UK politics, like Greens and Ukip, the most they can expect is coalition so, given the chance they must go for a coalition, otherwise, the vote are wasted.

I voted Lib Dem and I'd have been horrified had they gone and propped up the hideous Gordon Brown and his repulsive bullying side-kick Balls but I knew there was a chance and I could only hope the likes of David Laws would dominate the treasury as Balls was so inferior (Balls knew this and was behind the leaking of Laws' homosexuality).

if the Scots had gained their independance the all public transport in Marple other than the 394 and 62 would have been foreign owned)

Price of milk?

now deride the LibDems in the final months of the coalition.

That's how it was always going to end, both parties have to show their differences as we approach election -granted, it's not been managed well.

UKIP offer nothing but hatred
Is the irony intended?

  so my cross will have to be in the Labour box not because they inspire hope but because there is no other alternative. Ironically this will almost certainly be a vote wasted but at least at the moment the Tories have not privatised democracy.

Why, which policy do you agree with? All you have posted is a make-believe story and nothing to suggest you agree with any Labour policy?

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2014, 01:27:17 AM »
True enough for the majority but how many working people in 1980 were on wages so low that they could only survive care of the food banks?
The concept that unskilled working people could not make enough for food, basics and and a roof over their head was unthinkable thirty years ago. It is now virtually impossible to find an unskilled job that is permanent, offers full time hours or entitlement to some kind of a pension on retirement.

utter rubbish, the council employ more now than ever before. I agree, we hould get rid of most of them  but hey ho

marplerambler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2014, 07:49:26 PM »
Andy, are you seriously trying to suggest the vast majority of poeple in the UK are not materially "better off" than they were 30 years ago?

True enough for the majority but how many working people in 1980 were on wages so low that they could only survive care of the food banks?
The concept that unskilled working people could not make enough for food, basics and and a roof over their head was unthinkable thirty years ago. It is now virtually impossible to find an unskilled job that is permanent, offers full time hours or entitlement to some kind of a pension on retirement.

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2014, 07:31:14 PM »
Andy, are you seriously trying to suggest the vast majority of poeple in the UK are not materially "better off" than they were 30 years ago? (roughly the period I have been married). I would humbly suggest otherwise, just as people in 1984 were substantially better off than my parents were when they had mevin 1958.

By all means criticise "inequality", which is a perfectly legitimate view to take, but  but don't tell me that the vast majority of people in this country are not massively better-off than their parents  or grandparents.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2014, 07:18:34 PM »
Yes, a sales tax as an alternative to corporation tax would be fraught with difficulties, but some form of it is likely to to be the way forward.  Either that or its relative, unitary tax.

Duke writes:
What's on your drawing board, Duke?  Or do you think it's fine for multinational corporations to be cheating the system by avoiding tax on an industrial scale?

I think everyone should pay their fair share.

I think the corporation tax avoidance has been slightly over-blown. A lot of loopholes are there for good reasons, do we want to encourage companies to invest in the UK? If the answer is yes, why cry foul when they use such incentives and avoid tax. The tax system has not coped with the internet too well. In the old days, if you exported something like a car from the UK in to say the US, the importer paid the UK company and the UK company paid the tax on the profit (or if it was BL, shafted the taxpayer a bit because they got their sums wrong). The importer paid their national govt tax on the profit and sales tax, everyone was clear. Now, if we sell something advertised on Ebay, we just use a portal and that can be based anywhere, does the UK have a claim to tax the profits on an overseas company taking advertising orders from the UK and delivering them from their home state? I can't see that we do.

A solution? I say we have a simple low tax regime and simply stop expecting the state to wipe our collective bottoms.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy from people in the arts who complain about tax avoidance yet avoiding tax themselves (via charity, investment in films, investment in the arts etc etc)

Andy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2014, 06:48:26 PM »
Isn't it strange then, Marplerambler, that more coal mines were closed under Harold Wilson than under "Thatcher"?

Admittedly I haven't been around for too long, but, I can't ever remember coal mining being a staple industry of Marple.

Marple rambler makes two interesting points, firstly, the lib dem line of vote for us to keep the Tories out is dead in the water,

Secondly the neo-liberal ideology that has characterized the past 30+ years has been a tragedy for social and civic society and places a cost rather than a value on these things.

We have been promised by successive governments that we will all become better off, over the past 30 odd years this hasn't really happened for the majority and what improvements have been won are built on really shaky foundations.

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2014, 04:52:46 PM »
Isn't it strange then, Marplerambler, that more coal mines were closed under Harold Wilson than under "Thatcher"?

marplerambler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2014, 01:21:12 PM »
I worked in the Benefit Office during the Thatcher years and saw the Tories destroy Britain north of Watford. A word previously not even in the vocabulary of most Marpudlians destroyed the nation - unemployment. The consequence of the Tories determination to destroy the trade unions irregardless of the cost resulted what was the previously a part-time two morning a week outhouse of a benefit office becoming the busiest building in Marple full of people desperate for work receiving benefits which they had paid for during their many years of work. I have no great interest in politics but my only political ambition was that we would never again see a Conservative government. Two days before the last General Election Andrew Stunnell put a letter through my door stating Labour cannot win in Marple - you must vote LibDem to keep out the Tories. I dutifully did so and Andrew Stunnell immediately became a founding father of the ConDem coalition and later received his knighthood in recognition of this act of betrayal. Westminster LibDems sold their souls to the devil to satisfy their lust for power and sacrificed many admirable policies and I vowed that I would never again vote LibDem. Local LibDem councillors who I believe have done a fantastic job over many years were left to do the dirty work of their political masters and the Tory party which used the LibDems to destroy healthcare (try getting a doctor's appointment in Marple in less than a week), public services and public transport (grotty old bangers of trains with seats so close together you cannot fit if you are over 5 foot 10: if the Scots had gained their independance the all public transport in Marple other than the 394 and 62 would have been foreign owned) now deride the LibDems in the final months of the coalition. UKIP offer nothing but hatred so my cross will have to be in the Labour box not because they inspire hope but because there is no other alternative. Ironically this will almost certainly be a vote wasted but at least at the moment the Tories have not privatised democracy.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2735
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2014, 09:53:20 AM »
Yes, a sales tax as an alternative to corporation tax would be fraught with difficulties, but some form of it is likely to to be the way forward.  Either that or its relative, unitary tax.

Duke writes:
Back to the drawing board I think.

What's on your drawing board, Duke?  Or do you think it's fine for multinational corporations to be cheating the system by avoiding tax on an industrial scale?

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2014, 07:33:29 PM »
An interesting discussion.  Howard rightly points out that at the heart of the taxation issue is the tax avoidance activities of some of the world's biggest multinational corporations.  And he's surely right when he says that
True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to mitigate the problem.  And as Howard says, the EU is already doing something, and on a wider scale , so is the OECD.

I'm not an accountant, and maybe this is too simplistic, but it seems to me that what governments should be doing is working towards an international agreement that corporations will pay tax wherever they make sales, not where their headquarters happen to be situated.   Here in the UK, VAT is collected by HMRC, who therefore have an established mechanism for recording the trading activity of all companies selling 'vatable' goods and services.  That mechanism could, presumably, simply be adapted to collect corporation tax as well. 

You want to collect taxation on sales? given the  hoo-har hypocrisy and lies over the 20pc VAT, I think that may be politically difficult.

The big issue here is that it simply will not work. It was reported that Tesco make a £1 for every £40 spent, such are the margins they are playing with, they rely on volume. Anyone with a low margin / low cost product would be decimated by transferring corp tax to sales.

I think your idea will have a few unintended consequences with regard investment too.

Back to the drawing board I think.

As for Duke, any psychologist will tell you that people unintentionally reveal things about themselves through the assumptions they make about others.  Duke writes:
Duke may find this hard to understand, but believe it or not, there are actually people who are motivated in their working lives by things other than money!  The reason they are not bankers is not necessarily because they are not 'good enough' (whatever that may mean) but because they want to make a more useful contribution to society, rather than just make a heap of money.  Yes really - amazing isn't it!

Tell me what you do again?

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2735
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2014, 06:04:00 PM »
An interesting discussion.  Howard rightly points out that at the heart of the taxation issue is the tax avoidance activities of some of the world's biggest multinational corporations.  And he's surely right when he says that
  The problem with big corporations is that they have far more money to pay very expensive tax consultants and accountants than governments ever will.... Unless the whole world agrees (and when did that ever happen) someone will always work out a way of avoiding paying tax.

True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to mitigate the problem.  And as Howard says, the EU is already doing something, and on a wider scale , so is the OECD.

I'm not an accountant, and maybe this is too simplistic, but it seems to me that what governments should be doing is working towards an international agreement that corporations will pay tax wherever they make sales, not where their headquarters happen to be situated.   Here in the UK, VAT is collected by HMRC, who therefore have an established mechanism for recording the trading activity of all companies selling 'vatable' goods and services.  That mechanism could, presumably, simply be adapted to collect corporation tax as well. 

As for Duke, any psychologist will tell you that people unintentionally reveal things about themselves through the assumptions they make about others.  Duke writes:
I'm amazed the amount of public sector bods who claim to be badly paid and compare themselves to bankers. If they were good enough to succeed in banking, I'm sure they'd be in that industry

Duke may find this hard to understand, but believe it or not, there are actually people who are motivated in their working lives by things other than money!  The reason they are not bankers is not necessarily because they are not 'good enough' (whatever that may mean) but because they want to make a more useful contribution to society, rather than just make a heap of money.  Yes really - amazing isn't it!   

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2014, 03:26:23 PM »
Boden / Duke – I agree, the grass is always greener. However, take the CEO of a multinational or FTSE 100 or a Banker. I think pretty much 90% of the population would agree that if their salary equates to £1million or more a year plus pension they are rich.

Hmmm, the CEO always seems to be on some super salary. To earn that much money, he tends to need to achieve something special for his shareholders, if he doesn't he's often out on his ear. Similarly bankers, I'm amazed the amount of public sector bods who claim to be badly paid and compare themselves to bankers. If they were good enough to succeed in banking, I'm sure they'd be in that industry, the truth is that the best people can earn big money and so they should.

Taxing everything out of existence is silly. Ed Milliband's father didn't spend most of his high earning days in the USA because he was happier with the ideology of Carter & Reagan, it was more to do with him being able to keep far more of his earnings.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2014, 03:11:54 PM »
Boden guy - my original statement wasn't referring to ones personal tax bracket rather corporate tax. I believe corporations whose profits are in the billions should pay more, correction, pay what they owe.

In terms of personal tax I would like to see tax credits scrapped, indirect taxes scrapped and everyone paying some income tax, even  those on the lowest wages. This way everyone has a stake in the civic realm.

To achieve this everyone would have to be paid a living wage and income tax would have to be completely overhauled starting with a 2p rate right up to a 75p or even 99p rate for hose who are multi multi millionaires.

Does any one person need all that money?

Maybe we should tax wealth rather than income. I would welcome any sensible debate from any political party, it doesn't appear to be forthcoming.


It's all very well to believe a 'living' wage should be paid to all. The lowest paid lad in my place is on £7.20 before bonuses & is 21/22 and he goes out every weekend with disco dancing, pills and powder. He's out a few times a week and spends more on his car than it would cost to buy my own motor vehicle. Others are on more and cannot afford this lifestyle so should I pay to his living wage or the others? If I paid him £8 it would cost me an extra £36 a week and if he fails to hit his targets, frankly he's not really worth the money so we'd get rid.

Andy, your assumption seems to be that all employers are big multi-million ££ organisations. Most are not, when my business doesn't sell enough, my staff get paid and I go without.

If people want to earn more money and think they are being exploited, I suggest they set up their own business and put their money where there mouth is or simply work harder for your employer.


I’m actually a card carrying party member.

Which party?